BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday adjourned further hearing on a batch of petitions by landlords, tenants and owners of business establishments of Sadashivanagar.

When the matter came up, the court said because of paucity of time, the matter could be posted on March 13. The court was dealing with petitions by landlords and tenants, including banks, software companies, convenience shops and other business and commercial establishments challenging the decision of BMP in issuing notices to them and asking them to close down their establishments.

Justice Rammohan Reddy, who is hearing the case, asked the former Advocate-General B.T. Parthasarthy, who is representing several petitioners to look up the case of Shanta versus the Corporation Commissioner and the case of MI builders versus Sahu and make further arguments.

This is the third time in a week that the Sadashivanagar violations are coming up before the court.

On Tuesday, the court sought to know from the petitioners whether the BMP should have given opportunity for personal hearing before issuing notices for alleged violation in land use.

When some of the petitioners, including a school in Sadashivanagar, represented by Mr. Parthasarthy, said the BMP had not afforded them an opportunity of personal hearing, the court wanted to know whether it was mandatory and whether the petitioners were entitled for such a procedure.

Mr. Parthasarthy said in many instances the BMP had not identified owners of the buildings and served notices on them.

No communication

Instead, it had just pasted the notices on the premises, saying that action would be taken against them as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (KMC) Act.

He said BMP officials had not even condensed to contact tenants to obtain address of owners. He said the owners were entitled for a personal hearing.

When the court sought to know whether the school fulfilled the norms laid down in the Education Act, Mr. Parthasarthy said it might not fulfil all the requirements set out in the act but it did not violate the BMP provisions.

He said the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) of 1995 had specified certain categories of trade that were permissible in a residential area and school up to the tenth standard was permissible.

Placing a copy of the CDP before the court, he said it had only earmarked sites for civic amenity purposes but it did not specify their use.

He said the school had come up on a 60 x 90 feet plot.

BMP's ultimatum

He said he had rushed to the court as the notice had threatened him of action if he did not respond within a specified time.

Justice Rammohan Reddy adjourned further hearing on the petitions to March 13.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail